Media Flooding the Web With Fake Articles About Bill Gates (That Aren't His Name in the Books of Jeffrey Epstein's Special Clients)
MANY readers wonder why we slowed down. Tonight we get back to the normal (old) pace following some hardware-related perils. We'll be fully up to speed later this week.
Over the past week we've carefully watched how the media - and especially Bill Gates-funded media - covered the Epstein documents getting unsealed and whose names exactly are revealed (or emphasised). No disclosures were offered and the bias was, as always, quite blatant. Our Daily Links contained over a dozen examples of some coverage.
This article is not a comprehensive literature/media review. There were literally thousands of articles about this, in many different languages, and throughout the day both today and yesterday (probably last week as well) I kept seeing at the top of the sidebar of BillBC (Gates-bribed BBC) an article tying Epstein to "Andrew" but not anybody else. They never wrote about Gates and Epstein. Even years ago. Funny how silently such "cooperation (silence) money" works; the same is true for The Guardian, another British paper and site that boasts about taking bribes from Gates. Is the media protecting high-profile perverts? Don't call it a "conspiracy theory"; conspiracy? Yes.
Let's start with some US media. "Her reporting exposed Epstein," says this article from BillPR (NPR). "She tells NPR why documents naming powerful men matter..."
But which powerful men? Who is conspicuously omitted? They mention some names there, yet "Gates remains redacted till the dust settles," an associate told us. Remember that BillPR (NPR) takes bribes from Gates. It doesn't even bother disclosing it anymore, as noted in this article from Columbia Journalism Review (CJR).
One might conclude you can get away with doing horrible and illegal thing as long as you manage to bribe a lot of the important media. "What to know about the Jeffrey Epstein 'John Doe' files that were just unsealed" is another article from BillPR, which of course neglects to mention the role of BillPR's "special" sponsor.
Rupert Murdoch's right-leaning media empire has expectedly focused on "Andrew" (e.g. King Charles prepared to cut off Prince Andrew’s security funding at Royal Lodge over Epstein docs dump) and the Clintons (e.g. Ghislaine Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding after skipping deposition in case against Epstein), not Trump or Gates (a personal friend of Murdoch, even a business partner).
Gates remains redacted, according to some early reporting. Why the special treatment? We know for sure he was named, based on weeks-old press coverage.
So we seem to be dealing here with something like the Panama Papers - wherein courts or curators are cherry-picking and weaponising (disclosing) documents selectively against political enemies. With the Panama Papers - for those who do not know or cannot remember - there were a few select journalists dealing with the leaks, which were cherry-picked and weaponised against Russian oligarchs and some world leaders that Western countries strongly dislike. Wikileaks repeatedly condemned this and said everything should be disclosed as-is, not manipulated to only expose some people and protect some other people.
Yet worse, over the past few weeks we saw some "Bill Gates Says" pieces that we named here, e.g. greenwashing nonsense - or the whitewashing of a criminal - at Salon. How much does it cost to stick those puff pieces in there? We saw several more.
Looking at some other coverage, we've found:
- "The Epstein “list,” explained"
- "Second set of Jeffrey Epstein documents unsealed"
- "Read: Court releases 2nd batch of Epstein documents"
- "Unsealed Epstein documents reveal high-profile associates"
- "Newly unsealed Epstein documents leave Prince Andrew with 'much to answer for'"
- "Jeffrey Epstein list: Prince Andrew reported to Metropolitan Police, may be evicted from his mansion"
- "DISCUSS: Epstein “Client List” Released"
As an associate asked, "which names remain redacted? The press is misdirecting attention at Andrew..."
The BillBC has been doing it every single day lately, almost at every single article (in the sidebar).
Directing the outrage elsewhere? To a man who can never become king? Throwing the powerless under the bus for good measure?
We've seen this not just in English. For instance, here is an example in Swedish. They show 'Bill', but not the frequent flyer Bill; consider who ran this site in the past (yes, Microsoft in the national broadcaster in Finland). At least they later covered some crimes of Bill Gates, but nothing in relation to the above.
It's an exposé, but why not cover or investigate the time an arrest was made at Bill Gates' home for pedophilia? Or why he was visiting Epstein repeatedly, even in prison?
So what is this all about? Is Yle misdirecting attention again? 1990s stuff for which he, the mighty Gates, can no longer get arrested?
We gave more examples last month, showing the garbage that had been 'generated' to flood the Web, hailing Gates as some innocent or innocuous person, even a hero. Days ago I even saw chatbot-generated spam that entered Google News - stuff to the effect of "Bill Gate Says..."
And we saw the same last month, not only last week. The latest Daily Links (under the section "Transparency") have more examples and one can see "Page 1 of 8" in official sources, assuming heavy load/demand does not take them down (Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433)). "Download the Newly Unsealed Jeffrey Epstein Documents Here," it said, but at the most critical times the site/s was/were down, leaving people having to chase mirrors or instead relying on Murdoch's spin, trying to make it all about the Clintons.
"It appears that the 'news' covering the Epstein case are avoiding mentioning" Bill Gates, an associated noted last week, "and only throwing Bill Clinton and Andrew under the bus. The articles have not named him. Yet since we know he was a frequent flyer his name must be on the list."
Those of us who know how the media works cannot deny the impact of the media's owners and sponsors. They get to decide on all the important things, not just the headlines but also the topics and how to slant these by omission. I experienced this firsthand nearly 2 decades ago when I wrote for a reputable publisher that had existed for decades in print and online.
"The filing of these documents ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until completed," one link noted, "a court order dated Wednesday said."
Well, rolling is good if the goal is more impact, but the order will matter! It will matter a lot.
Is Bill Gates coming soon? Getting an advance notice/headsup gives people time to absorb, cover the news. But one can guess if not know which media will cover more of Clinton and which will focus on Trump, making this a political issues rather than a class issue.
This is a media failure, not just a court failure. Who gets to decide what to redact or whose name to hide? Can they not be influenced, bribed, intimidated?
It certainly feels like this disclosure is full of biases; the media likewise, maybe trying to saturate/dilute the noise/signal with non-signal in very large quantities.
"That would be my guess too," an associate concluded. "Also the focus on Bill Clinton gets the string 'Bill' out there in the search engine results regarding the string 'Epstein'." █